Re: [eia] Spanish Land Phase, 4/07

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Well, I guess it doesn't really matter that much whether the mistaken
interpretation is carried over for the remainder of the turn, since the only
people left to go are Prussia, France, and GB.  Jim and I aren't in much of
a position to make use of the sea supply rules, and if JJ is willing to be
bound by the new, more restrictive interpretation, then that's fine by me.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:05 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] Spanish Land Phase, 4/07


> I also disagree with retroactive changes, but don't feel that incorrect
> rules should be in effect for the entire turn.  Now that it has been
brought
> to everyone's attention there is no reason for the mistake to be made
again
> by someone else.  Personally, I agree with a comment that was made ( by
> Kyle, I believe) that the rules are available to everyone so Spain's
forage
> roll should stand, along with the resulting losses.  The problem with
> retroactive changes is that, as Mike has pointed out before, the person
> making the changes already knows the results of their die rolls can
unfairly
> minimize their damage by making better decisions with knowledge they
> shouldn't have.  Thats my two cents.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Kyle H
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 2:34 PM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: Re: [eia] Spanish Land Phase, 4/07
>
>
>     The way I see it, you found the mistake *after* Danny's naval and land
> orders were already published.  Hence, they are grandfathered in.  And it
is
> only to be fair to everyone else that we extend the same rules to everyone
> for the rest of the turn.  That is, the way I'm looking at it, Danny's
turn
> was already done when you discovered the mistake.  But it is not fair to
> spring a rules change on the rest of us mid-turn.  That's why I was
> suggesting that the same interpretation be continued for the remainder of
> the turn.
>
>     You may be uncomfortable leaving the rules the same for the rest of
the
> turn, but I'm uncomfortable *not* doing so.  (I'm not sure where that
leaves
> us.)  I'm also uncomfortable with retroactive movement changes.
>     In my view, the fairest thing for everybody is to let everyone's
orders
> stand as written but to apply the same rules to everybody, at least for
the
> remainder of the turn.  (It's certainly not fair to have one set of rules
> for those who went earlier in the turn and a different set for those who
had
> the misfortune of going later!)
>
>     Of course, once this turn is over, I'm quite happy to begin applying
the
> rules as written.
>
> kdh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] Spanish Land Phase, 4/07
>
>
> >
> > >     In this case, I think that our previous interpretation of the
rules
> > > should apply for the remainder of this turn.  So Spain keeps its
fleets
> > > where they are and gets to supply the corps in Damietta via sea
supply.
> > But
> > > even under our old interpretation of the rules, Naples would not have
> been
> > > eligible for sea supply this turn.  So the corps at Naples loses 2
(not
> > 3 -
> > > thanks JJ) factors due to foraging losses.
> > >     However, we are all aware that next turn the sea supply rules will
> be
> > > enforced as written.  If Danny wishes to move his fleets, that will be
> his
> > > choice.
> > >
> > > kdh
> >
> > I am uncomfortable with "letting things slide" with an incorrect rule
for
> > the rest of a
> > turn.  This was not the case when we discovered the previous mistake
about
> > Languedoc; as soon as we discovered the correct rule, it went into
effect,
> > and Spain no longer collected the manpower.
> >
> > If we want to stay within the confines of April, in a way that changes
> > nothing that has happened or could
> > have happened, then Danny could have moved the I fleet to Palermo this
> turn,
> > and build a depot there to provide sea supply.
> > Or else Danny could just have the 4 corps at Damietta each forage at 5-.
> >
> > I feel a small change like this in April's orders would be less of a
> liberty
> > than letting an incorrect rule stand after we've found out about it.
> >
> > -JJY
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eia mailing list
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia